Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3132 (RAJ)

UPENDRA UPADHYAY v. MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

CW/1103/2017 · 2026-04-21

Bipin Gupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103/2017 Upendra Upadhyay Son Of Late Shri Mahendra Dutt Upadhyay, By Caste Brahmin, 837, Jat Ka Kuwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur At Present R/o Plot No. 60, Vijaywadi, Path No. 1, Opposite Teen Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur Raj. ----Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus Mahendra Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Gauri Shanker Gupta, By Caste Mahajan, House No. 2709, Bheru Ji Ka Chowk, Behind Jugal Jodi School, Jat Ke Kuwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur Raj. ----Defendant/Non-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta, Ms. Shivani Soni Ms. Sampati For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C. Sharma along with Mr. Lokesh Panvar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 21/04/2026 1. The matter comes upon an application No. 01/2026, whereby the petitioner has prayed that the present writ petition be treated as a revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is one by which the application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13CPC was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has raised an objection that a writ petition is not maintainable against such an order and that a revision under Section 151 CPC is the appropriate remedy. [2026:RJ-JP:16858] (2 of 3) [CW-1103/2017] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the impugned order is set aside or reversed by this Court, no proceedings would remain pending before the learned Trial Court, and the suit itself would stand terminated. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner ought to have filed a revision petition. He further submits that, having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to convert the present writ petition into a revision petition. 6. Heard and perused the material available on records. 7. This Court finds that the present writ petition has been pending since the year 2017. Both, a writ petition and a revision petition are maintainable before the High Court; the difference between the two is primarily one of nomenclature. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7499/2016, decided on 05.07.2022, whereby a coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the conversion of a writ petition into a revision petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that Application No. 01/2026 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed, and the present writ petition is directed to be converted into a revision petition. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary changes after obtaining the requisite documents from the petitioner. 10. The Registry shall assign an appropriate revision petition number to the matter and list the same before the appropriate Bench. [2026:RJ-JP:16858] (3 of 3) [CW-1103/2017] 11. The Present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of for the purpose of record. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /32